C.S. SHARANA KUMAR, S/O SHRI C. SADASHIVAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW (ADMINISTRATION), M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT BUI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner after having practised as an Advocate at Tumkur for over eleven years, had applied for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), pursuant to a Notification inviting applications for the post. The petitioner was selected under the Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules. 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KJS Rules' for brevity) as per Notification dated 3.3.2001. He was directed to report for duty before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar. He was thereafter directed to take charge of the Court of the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kolar Gold Fields, from 26.3.2001. He had worked in that post till 15.2.2003, He war transferred to Chikodi in Belgaum District on 3.2.2003.

(2.) IT transpires that the petitioner was intimated or, 15.4.2004 and 16.4.2004 by separate communications that certain remarks were recorded in his Confidential Report pertaining to the period 1.1.2003 to 25.5.2003, to the effect that though the petitioner's knowledge of the law was satisfactory, it required improvement and further that the supervision and control of the staff required greater control and his outlook towards the members of the bar required correction and in the other Confidential Report, which was for the period 1.6.2002 to 15.9.2002, he was informed that the quality of his judgments though satisfactory, there was scope for improvement and that he ought to bestow more attention towards disposal of old cases. Apart from this, the petitioner claims that he was not aware of any other complaint or blemish as regards his services. Therefore, the petitioner was taken by shock and surprise when the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, by an order dated 24.5.2004, informed the petitioner that he was discharged from service with immediate effect on the ground of non -suitability to hold the post. Incidentally, by then, the petitioner had put in more than three years of service, in that, he had completed two years of probation. But, no formal order declaring satisfactory completion of probation was issued either to the petitioner or to persons who were appointed as Civil Judges alongwith the petitioner.

(3.) IT is also contended that the petitioner having been transferred to Chikodi, there were several disgruntled members of the Bar who were averse to the long pending cases being disposed of, whereas the petitioner was duty -bound to meet the prescribed quota of disposals and it left him with no choice, but to adjudicate the matters and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, which lead to friction and baseless allegations being made against the petitioner of rude behaviour with the members of the bar. The petitioner was placed on notice of the allegations and the petitioner had replied to the same. The petitioner would hence contend that even if these allegations were found to be with any substance, in the absence of an inquiry and the petitioner being given an opportunity of contesting the same, the discharge is punitive in nature and cannot be construed as a discharge simpliciter. The glaring circumstance that immediately preceding the order of discharge, the Confidential Reports pertaining to the petitioner's service had declared that his performance was satisfactory would render the order discharging him as having been found unsuitable or his performance not being up to the mark as being inconsistent and wholly unacceptable. It is in this background that the present petition is filed.